Are students customers in higher education? Should we care about the answer?

Campbell-Perry, S.; Williamson, E.

Published in:INTED2017 Proceedings

DOI:10.21125/inted.2017.0508

Publication date:2017

Document VersionAuthor accepted manuscript

Link to publication in ResearchOnline

Citation for published version (Harvard):Campbell-Perry, S & Williamson, E 2017, Are students customers in higher education? Should we care aboutthe answer? in INTED2017 Proceedings. IATED, pp. 1617-1623. https://doi.org/10.21125/inted.2017.0508

General rightsCopyright and moral rights for the publications made accessible in the public portal are retained by the authors and/or other copyright ownersand it is a condition of accessing publications that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights.

Take down policyIf you believe that this document breaches copyright please view our takedown policy at https://edshare.gcu.ac.uk/id/eprint/5179 for detailsof how to contact us.

Download date: 05. Dec. 2021

ARE STUDENTS CUSTOMERS IN HIGHER EDUCATION? SHOULD WE CARE ABOUT THE ANSWER?

Sonya Campbell-Perry1, Dr. Elizabeth Williamson2 1United Kingdom 2United Kingdom

Abstract

The question surrounding whether students are indeed customers is both controversial and infinitely complex. The Higher Education sector continues to argue over this topic as it attempts to keep pace with a heightened consumerist market place (Saunders, 2014). As a result, this sector has become engaged in a discussion about how best to satisfy its students whilst delivering a high quality educational ‘customer’ experience whilst undergoing significant fiscal changes. A reduction in central funding in England has been largely offset by the ability to generate income through the introduction of ‘top-up’ fees. Whilst in Scotland, income continues to be reduced as this additional income source is not available. As universities identify a need to deliver increased levels of student satisfaction, this understanding of the student as customer (SAC) may be interpreted differently across the institution, resulting in inconsistent approaches, as administrators, faculty, and students each have their own interpretation of their roles and contribution. The resulting debates over the provision of student services have caused friction between colleagues and as well as an inconsistent experience across the university for the students. Millward (2016) recognises this state of inconsistency of approach and its impact, within her research into formal student complaints and identifies an existent culture of defensiveness and protectionism across the UK HE sector, as HEIs struggle to deal with students who actively feedback their dissatisfaction with their student experience. However there is a very real question that appears to be largely unanswered. Do students feel like customers? Finney & Finney (2010) identified a gap in students’ understanding of themselves as customers. This notion of SAC was found to have credence within Glasgow Caledonian University (GCU). The researcher interviewed 64 students whether they were customers of GCU. The responses indicated that over 70% felt in some way that they were customers of the university. These themes and their implications in terms of delivering a better student experience will be discussed in the presentation. Whilst the debate may continue to rage over the status of students, there is an understanding that the increasingly competitive market place requires the student experience to be excellent, in order to increase future (paying) student numbers (Douglas et al., 2015). Therefore, HEIs have been focused on the development of relevant service models which understand and support an excellent student experience delivered in a cost effective manner (Onsman, 2008). The use of ‘Converged Service’ models within the HE sector has been established within UK HEIs since the 1980s and has had resurgence in interest in their use during the last decade (Melling & Weaver, 2013).Evidence from recent research carried out, has shown that converged service model types have evolved and are also perceived to be effective at delivering high levels of student satisfaction in a resource efficient manner. In addition, 5 new models of converged service models have been recognised and these results will be disseminated within the presentation.

Keywords: student support, student experience, students as customers, service models, convergence.

Are students our customers in higher education? Should we care about the answer?

Introduction

The Higher education sector is attempting to keep pace with a heightened consumerist market place

(Saunders, 2014), where students now have the opportunity to access university places across the

globe. Higher education (HE) has therefore become engaged in a discussion about how best to satisfy

its students whilst delivering a high quality educational experience. The sector has also been

confronted by significant fiscal changes including a reduction in central funding. This has been largely

offset within UK universities (with the exception of Scotland), by the introduction of ‘top-up’ fees in

September 2006. Reagan (2012) contends that the launch of top-up fees has supported a developing

consumerist culture within the UK HE system.

A battleground has therefore emerged within the HE sector as the arguments surrounding whether the

student can be seen as a customer is highly contested (Ness & Osbourne, 2010). These debates have

increased in volume, not just within HE as a sector, but internally within higher education institutions

(HEIs) themselves as disputes rage between colleagues from academia and professional support

departments as to whether the students should be treated as a customer. There are a number of

major criticisms levelled at the Student as Customer SAC model (Finney & Finney, 2010) from the

academic perspective within HE. One criticism is that the model subverts academic rigour, and that by

pandering to student expectations grade leniency is promoted (Nguyen & Rosetti, 2013). Following

this leniency there is a reduction in the overall student responsibility for their own learning (Hassel &

Lourey, 2005), with an unrealistic expectation for what the university should deliver for the student.

A further argument to whether students should be treated as customers is offered, by Lomas (2007)

who questions whether service delivery in HE is comparable to service provision in alternative sectors:

‘The difficulty of regarding students as customers is based on the view that the professional service in

higher education cannot be fully evaluated until some while after it has been provided. The student is

only able to reflect fully upon the benefits of the knowledge and skills acquired and the attitudes that

have been developed after a number of years when there has been sufficient opportunity to realize

what they have learnt in a workplace setting’ (Lomas, 2007,p.35). Therefore the continued use of

SAC may have a propensity to distance the student from the process of learning itself. As a direct

consequence, students acting as a customer will make increasing demands upon the university as

their expectations and perceptions of what the university should deliver will need to be met, regardless

of the longer term outcomes.

In addition, there are a number of outcomes which impact on the institution and academic practices

and staff. Staff might find it more difficult to teach students using a short term approach, and in a

subsequent lessening of their autonomy and authority, they will be forced to comply with students’

demands as senior management require the delivery of student expectation and satisfaction

(MacMillan & Cheyney, 1996). In addition this understanding of the student as customer may be

interpreted differently across the university, resulting in an inconsistent approach by administrators,

faculty, and students, who will each have their own interpretation of their roles. This in itself places

barriers between the collaboration and consistency of organizational relationships (MacMillan &

Cheyney, 1996; McCulloch, 2009).

Indeed recent comments by Baroness Wolf speaking in the House of Lords in relation to proposed

educational reform, which will see (amongst other changes), the placing of student satisfaction at the

heart of a new university ranking system, indicates just how emotive and conflictual the subject still

remains within academia “The student satisfaction measure is fantastically dangerous. The way to

make students happy is not asking them to do any work and giving them a high grade..This will reduce

standards and undermine quality. I just think this is totally mad, and destructive of everything

universities stand for” (Baroness Wolf, The Telegraph: Accessed on the 8th January, 2017).

Why does student satisfaction matter to higher education?

Millward (2016) within her research into formal student complaints within the UK HE Sector recognises

that a state of conflict exists and comments that it has led to inconsistency of service provision within

HEIs. She identifies an existent culture of defensiveness and protectionism across the UK HE sector,

as HEIs struggle to deal with students who actively feedback their dissatisfaction with their student

experience. This has resulted in a position whereby students become frustrated with the lack of

response to their complaints, or in some cases the negative response which follows from their

feedback about their student experience. Where the resulting response to the original complaint is

poor, then ‘double deviation’ may occur. This is a situation whereby the organisations attempt to

resolve the original service issue is equally as flawed as the original experience (Joireman et al.,

2013).

This inability to treat students’ views as important fails to recognise the necessity for student

engagement within their own experience. As a result this belief manages to deconstruct the need for

student responsibility and autonomy within their own student experience, thus in practice students do

not have a voice or a significant role in their own experience. This is an ironic twist to the argument as

by not regarding students as customers, and by not treating the student’s feedback as important, this

elicits a similar outcome from the criticism levelled at the SAC model, which is it decreases student

autonomy for their own learning. Whether this student belief that they are customers is as a direct

reaction towards the consumerisation of HE since the inception of top up fees, the evidence remains

uncertain. What is certain is that increasingly upset and unhappy students are willing and able to

voice their concerns in public forums, affecting league table results and potentially impacting on the

HEIs ability to attract new students to their courses (Douglas et al., 2015).

Whilst the current position in Scotland differs from that of the rest of the UK, where domestic (resident

in Scotland) students have their fees paid direct to the university by the Scottish government, non-

domestic, that is other UK students and international students are still expected to pay for the cost of

their course. It is anticipated that these fee paying students will hold higher expectations of what the

university will offer them in relation to their satisfaction with their student experience. A study by

Ibrahim et al. (2013) in to the perception of overseas students towards service quality in Scottish HEIs

agrees with this assessment as it identified a service gap in the delivery of the student experience as

being ‘..the lack of prompt responses given by staff to students..’ and that HEIs should ‘..therefore

deploy their staff in an efficient manner, for which good service can be delivered’ (Ibrahim et al., 2013,

p.28).

This notion of students-as-customers was found to have credence within Glasgow Caledonian

University (GCU), despite a vast difference in the funding structure for Scottish students in relation to

their English and American counterparts as previously outlined. A small scale research project by the

author asked students about their perception of being a customer within GCU (Campbell- Perry,

2014). The researcher interviewed 64 students across the three faculties of Business, Health and

Engineering during 2014, and asked specifically whether they were customers of GCU. The responses

indicated that over 70% felt in some way that they were customers of the university. This was

particularly interesting when reviewing the statements of Scottish undergraduate (UG) students.

Table.1. Why do GCU students see themselves as customers?

Themes Summary code Frequency

Service provision SER 15

Paying for it (education) PAY 12

Consumer/consuming/using CON 12

Outcomes/product OUT 8

Choice CHO 6

Advice/Help/complain ADV 4

(Source: Autho

There were three key themes that appeared to favour an understanding of their customer status:

(1) The university provides a service that they use

(2) Education is paid for (although not necessarily by themselves).

(3) They were consuming a service.

There was a strong notion that receiving a service, paying for that service, and indeed consuming that

service were strong indicators of customer –like status:

‘…the Scottish government have paid my tuition fees…when you paid for something you usually want

to see an outcome or product..I’m that product..they’re gonna want to see the best product to come

out…’(Scottish, UG)

‘.I am a paying student…so I’m definitely a customer…as I’m consuming the education…’ (Scottish,

UG)

‘…we come to classes and we use all the services..we get a degree at the end, like we have the

product at the end…’ (Scottish, UG).

This was in direct contrast to the assumption that as Scottish UG students didn’t pay fees their

perception would not be strongly in favour of a customer status. Those that did not see themselves as

customers were less sure of what their relationship could be perceived as, but offered alternative

suggestions such as ‘working with’ the university, being part of a team, part of the family or member of

the university.

‘I don't see myself as a customer…I really see myself more as a member…helping enable the

university..kinda improve the university’ (Male post-graduate (PG) student).

The emergent themes from GCU study are echoed by Saunders belief that the exchange of money for

educational services makes customer centricity a priority for HE (Saunders, 2014). This notion is also

advocated by Mark (2014) in his review of student satisfaction and customer focus in higher education

in Canada. He states that it must now be acknowledged by the HE sector ‘..that students, by paying

for the guided learning experience, and by being selective about the institutions and career paths they

choose, and by specifying many aspects of their educational experience-do very much comport

themselves as customers, and merely stating emphatically that they do not does little to alter the

nature of their behaviour’ (Mark, 2014, p.9). This is clearly seen by a sample of statements from the

transcribed interviews of 12 of the GCU students who stated that they held a customer status due to

the need to pay for their university experience, or a further 12 who stated they consumed ‘educational

services’. Further evidence to support this notion is found in the published literature where it is argued

that HE may need to accept that students can perceive themselves to be on some, if not all levels a

consumer within their university experience (Saunders, 2014). Saunders (2014) suggests that

students do not necessarily need to see themselves as customers ‘..to embrace a customer

orientation, as their beliefs and behaviours often demonstrate the extent to which they adopt a

customer orientation’ (Saunders, 2014, p. 204). This, he explains has led to a situation whereby the

notion of students as customer is not made explicit by the university, but as a direct result promulgates

a culture of customer orientation, where there is a campus wide focus on student satisfaction.

So in essence UK universities, including Scottish Universities, have to provide higher levels of service

to deliver student expectations. This is at a time where institutional resources are being stretched in

the face of decreasing central funding levels (Bulpitt,2012). McCaffery (2010) argues that one of the

major challenges that now face higher education institutions (HEIs) lies in transitioning into a role

where they have to ‘..do ‘more’ (that is teach more students) with ‘less’ (fewer resources) while

simultaneously maintaining ‘quality’ (McCaffery, 2010,p.1).

In order to maintain their league table rankings over the longer term, institutions are consequently

tasked with managing the internal ramifications of these funding changes at a time where there are

increasing numbers of demanding students. Watson and Amoah (2007) suggest that the impact of

attempting to balance the internal driver of resource efficiency, and the external driver of student

satisfaction, have resulted in staff alienation, cynicism with change, demoralisation and

disengagement. Indeed surveys carried out with HE staff over the last decade by The Times Higher

and on behalf of the University and Colleges Union (UCU) have indicated that unreasonable

workloads, working longer hours, combined with unrealistic expectations from senior management has

led to increasing instances of stress and bullying being experienced by academics within HEIs (The

Times Higher Education, 2016).The challenge facing the HE sector is indeed a formidable one,

balancing the needs and expectations of increasingly expectant students, with decreasing resources.

So how does HE support the student experience?

There is a very real question that appears to go largely unanswered within the sector. Do students

actually feel like customers? And if so what impact does that have on how, when and what universities

are required to do to support their students? Finney & Finney (2010) in their research on student

understanding of SAC identified this gap in understanding of whether US students perceived

themselves to be customers. The gap, they stated, was being created as institutions increasingly

implemented a SAC model without identifying the impact of its use, and without ascertaining how

closely their students identified themselves as customers, and if this was indeed the case, how

strongly and in what situations did they subscribe to these beliefs. The findings of their study did

strengthen the notion that US students felt themselves to be customers, involved in an ‘exchange’ with

the university. Therefore it was suggested that universities needed to focus on defining and

highlighting the student responsibilities within their own student experience, to better inform their

student ‘customers’ that they had a significant part to play in achieving a satisfactory student

experience as they must ‘..co-produce their desired educational outcomes. Universities could

emphasise student’s accountabilities for helping create knowledge and for meeting learning

expectations’ (Finney & Finney, 2010, p.287).

Tomlinson (2016) undertakes a review of the ‘student consumer’ in UK higher education. The research

identifies a wide variation of student attitudes toward holding a consumerist approach to their

educational experience. However, it was understood that despite a variation within the views that

students held toward being a consumer, there was emerging student identification with a consumerist

approach. As a consequence students felt that they were in a position of increased bargaining power

with the organization in relation to the delivery of their own learning. What appeared very interesting

was that in tandem with this power shift, a balance was created as students felt increasingly

responsible for their own part within the process. Universities need to harness this student

responsibility by describing and clarifying what students are expected to do and when.

Tomlinson (2016) goes on to state that a widely applied metaphor that captured students perception of

their educational experience was one of ‘investment’, and that as a direct result student expectations

of their teaching and learning were ‘clearly rising’ in to the value they were deriving from their

investment. However he posts a note of caution for institutions that the variation of student views and

beliefs toward a consumerist approach not only differs between student, but is also changed by

“..specific context and student experience at different points in times” (Tomlinson, 2016, p.13). A more

personalized approach is therefore required, one which delivers the right support and solutions to the

individual student. Again universities are tasked with the problem of delivering personalized and

satisfactory service, but in an efficient manner.

Practical solutions

Whilst the debate may continue to rage over what students are labelled as, there is an understanding

that in the increasingly competitive market place that is now the international higher education sector,

universities are required to deliver an excellent student experience. This not only satisfies their current

students, but also ensures that as satisfied students leave their institution, they are happy to

recommend their experience to others, and as a direct result their reputation grows which increases

future (paying) student numbers applying to study at the institution (Douglas et al., 2015; Ibrahim

et.al., 2013). With these external factors in mind HEIs have been focused on the development of

relevant service models which understand and support an excellent student experience, whilst

ensuring these services are delivered in a cost effective manner (Onsman, 2008).

The implementation of ‘Converged Service’ models within the HE sector has been well established

within UK HEIs for over three decades (Appleton, 2012). However these models of service delivery

have once again been under review following the resurgence of interest in their use during the last 10

years (Melling & Weaver, 2013). Converged service was originally defined within the HE sector as

‘The bringing together of the library and the computer service, possibly with other separate support

services, under the management of an executive director..’ (Pugh, 1997, p.3). As such the provision of

converged service models had largely been thought to require the integration of the ‘Information

Services’ departments, commonly library and IT services, which had been driven by the technological

advancements that finally brought computing to mainstream usage within the sector during the 1990s

(Royan, 1994). Pugh (1997) conducted the last UK wide review of convergence where it was identified

that all the convergence models reported at that time featured library and IT services. It was also

noted that less than 20% of the converged models integrated one or more of the student support

departments (such as careers or student welfare) into the model with Library and IT.

Whilst two decades have now passed since Pugh’s (1997) original work into convergence, it appears

that converged service models are still evident in their practical application within the UK HE sector.

The research set out to identify whether anything had changed during this time period, and paid

particular attention to identifying what was meant by the term ‘convergence’, what was driving

convergence, and what were the likely outcomes of convergence. By determining these factors it

would allow for an appreciation of how effective converged models were at delivering their anticipated

objects, one of which, it was assumed, would be to increase student satisfaction.

Bulpitt (2012) researched the use of ‘super-converged’ services within UK HEIs. This is where HEIs

integrate all, or as many of their front facing student departments as is relevant, generally into one

physical area. This ‘bigger is better’ model was being increasingly not only to satisfy increasing

student expectation, who as customers were now demanding value, but also to counteract the fiscal

implications of HE funding changes which has largely been driven by governmental policy.

Consequently HEIs were required to deliver higher levels of student satisfaction, but in a more efficient

manner to meet these new budgetary restrictions. As identified previously these two main drivers for

change in the sector were seen as potentially self-defeating as; ‘These developments place services

to students in the front line confronting universities..Because student services depend on staffing

levels and require substantial accommodation for study, available for long hours, they are expensive

to operate’ (Bulpitt, 2012, p.4). The challenge therefore is to provide high quality services that

increased student satisfaction, but were also delivered in a cost effective manner.

The recent research into converged service models in UK HEIS delivered 69 responses to a possible

159 HEIs (43% response rate). From the 25 HEIs that indicated they were using converged service

models, 13 indicated that by 2016 increasing student satisfaction was the main driver, 13 cited it was

to increase efficiency, and 2 stated specifically that were asked to reduce costs using the model. It

appears that student satisfaction and resource efficiency were still the main drivers for convergence.

Table 2. Main drivers for convergence.

Source: (Author: 2016).

During follow up interviews with eight UK HEIs a phenomenographic methodology was employed to

ascertain the variation in experience of convergence. Whilst the interviews identified that whilst the

main drivers could be simplified to delivering resource efficiency and increasing student satisfaction,

there was a large variation in what was meant by these objectives to each individual institution. There

were five categories of meaning found which applied to resource efficiency. On one side of the

spectrum this meant cutting costs, on the other side, spending money to improve resource efficiency.

The delivery of student satisfaction was found to have six different categories of meaning, from

providing consistency of service to spending additional resource to specifically improve services.

The research found that convergence was no longer centred on the integration of Library and IT

services, indeed one third of the HEIs that responded had de-converged their IT and library converged

models. However it appeared that in the intervening years HEIs had started to implement converged

models that integrated all of their Student Support services, without the presence of either library or IT.

And whilst the tInformation Service Model was still represented, it appeared that the more favoured

model or indeed models might include separating these services into at least two types of converged

model. Of the eight insitutions interviewed (three of which had stated they were unconverged) seven

had implemented standalone Student Services converged models.

Following this research the definition of convergence was reviewed and a more up-to-date definition is

offered:

The provision of converged services within higher education allows for any number of non-academic

services to be brought together in order to deliver more accessible, consistent, and integrated

services, whose ultimate aim is to bring the student experience together. These services are likely, but

not exclusively, delivered from a singular physical and virtual point, which allows students (and other

customers) increased and consistent access to problem resolution and general support in order to

maximise their potential within their university experience.

Evidence from recent research into the UK HE sector has shown that converged service model types

have evolved and are now more likely to include multiple different services that may, or may not

combine Library and IT. They are also perceived to be 80% effective at delivering high levels of

student satisfaction in a resource efficient manner. Interestingly HEIs that were categorised as modern

established as degree awarding after the 1960s) perceived convergence models to be 10% more

effective than their traditional university counterparts. The research identified five new converged

service models in operation and produced a Converged Service Model Framework to support

practioners in the field identify the most appropriate models to satisfy individual institutional needs.

Whatever the outcome of the debate surrounding students as customers, we, as educational providers

cannot lose sight of the fact that it is our student’s perceptions and expectations that count, not our

own arguments over whether they should be treated as partners, or clients or learners. Our students

have been feeding back to us in relation to their expectations and satisfaction of their experiences

within our institutions, and in most respect we are being found wanting. World-class service

organisations are generally effective at listening to their customers so that they can identify,

understand and ultimately successfully manage their customer expectations (Johnston & Clark, 2008),

and in this respect HEIs can no longer hide behind the ‘are students customers’ argument as a means

to do nothing.

References:

Douglas, J.A., Douglas, A., McClelland, R.J., & Davies, J. (2015) “Understanding student satisfaction

and dissatisfaction: an interpretive study in the UK higher education context”, Studies in Higher

Education, Vol. 40, no.2, pp. 329-349.

Finney, T.G. & Finney, R.Z. (2010) “Are students their universities' customers? An exploratory study”,

Education + Training, Vol.52, no.4, pp.276-291.

Ibrahim,E., Wang,L.W., & Hassan,A.,(2013) “Expectations and Perceptions of Overseas Students

towards Service Quality of Higher Education Institutions in Scotland”, International Business

Research, Vol.6, no.6, pp.20-30.

Johnston, R., Clark,G., & Shulver, M. (2012) Service Operations Management. Improving Service

Delivery, 4th Ed., Pearson Education Limited.

Joireman, J.,Grégoire, Y., Devezer, B. &Tripp., T.M. (2013) "When do customers offer firms a “second chance” following a double deviation? The impact of inferred firm motives on customer revenge and reconciliation." Journal of Retailing Vol. 89.no. 3, pp. 315-337.

McCaffery,P. (2010) The Higher Education Mangers Handbook, 2nd

Ed. Routledge.

McCulloch, A. (2009) “The student as co-producer: learning from public administration about the

student-university relationship”, Studies in Higher Education, Vol.34. no.2, pp. 171-183.

Melling, M. & Weaver, M. (2013) Collaboration in Libraries and Learning Environments, Facet

Publishing, London.

Millward, C.V. (2016)“Student complainants – vexatious or vulnerable?” Perspectives: Policy and Practice in Higher Education, Vol. 20, no.4, pp.1-6.

Nguyen, A. & Rosetti,J. (2013) “Overcoming potential negative consequences of customer orientation

in higher education: closing the ideological gap”, Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, Vol.23,

no.2, pp.155-174.

Reagan, J.A. (2012) “The role obligations of students and lecturers in Higher Education” Journal of

Philosophy of Education, Vol.46, no.1.pp.14-24.

Onsman, A., (2008) “Tempering universities’ marketing rhetoric: strategic protection against litigation

or an admission of failure?”, Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, Vol. 30, no.1,

pp.77-85.

Pugh, L. (1997) Convergence in academic support services, British Library Research and Innovation

Centre Report 54.

Tomlinson, M. (2015) “Student perceptions of themselves as ‘consumer’ of higher education”, British

Journal of Sociology in Education, pp.1-15

Turner, C. (2017) The Telegraph Education News, Available from:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/01/08/universities-warned-snowflake-student-

demands/?WT.mc_id=tmg_share_em

Watson, D. & Amoah, M., (2007) The Dearing Report: ten years on. Institute of Education, University

of London.

REFERENCES [Arial, 12-point, bold, left alignment]

[1] Reference [Arial, 10-point, left alignment, upper and lower case]

[2] A. Einstein, “General theory of relativity,” Annalen der Physik, vol. 49, no. 7, pp. 769–822, 1916.